Back
2008 Supreme(Del) 1121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V.B.GUPTA
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Sonia - Respondent
MAC App. No.518/2008 and CM No.14400/2008
Decided On : 06-11-2008
Mr. R.N. Sharma, Adv.
Nemo.
The burden of proof lies with the insurance company to establish that the driver was not holding a valid licence at the time of the accident, and mere allegations of the driver's lack of licence are not sufficient to absolve the insurer from liability.
Headnote:
Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 173 - Sections 3, 181, 149 - The court discussed the relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, including the necessity for a driving licence (Section 3), penalties for driving vehicles in contravention of licensing requirements (Section 181), and the duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against insured persons (Section 149). The court highlighted the interpretation of these provisions and their influence on the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a fatal accident caused by a driver allegedly driving in a rash and negligent manner. The insurance company challenged the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claiming that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to substantiate their claim that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was deemed just, fair, and equitable.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the driver's licence, the duty of the insurance company to satisfy judgments and awards, and the interpretation of relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the insurance company to establish that the driver was not holding a valid licence at the time of the accident. Mere allegations of the driver's lack of licence are not sufficient to absolve the insurer from liability.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was upheld.
1. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present appeal under SectionA 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short as Act) challenging the award dated 11th July, 2008, passed by Sh. Suresh Chand Rajan, Judge MACT (for short as Tribunal).
2. Brief facts of this case are that one Nirmal Singh, aged 49 years, suffered fatal injuries on 8th December, 2000, due to the accident allegedly caused by respondent No.6/Sanjeev, who was driving vehicle No.DL-1P-8827 at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner.
3. The vehicle is owned by respondent No.5/Bharat Singh and is insured with the appellant.
4. Respondent/owner and driver in their separate written statements, denied the factum of the accident as well as the involvement of the offending vehicle in any accident.
5. Respondent/Driver later on stopped appearing after filing the written statement. Hence, he was proceeded ex-parte.
6. Appellant in its written statement admitted the factum of insurance. However, it took a preliminary objection stating that the insured submitted claim form, after the alleged accident to the appellant-Insurance company in order to take O.D. claim, wherein name of driver is mentioned as Sh. Vikram Singh who has valid and effective driving licence. Accordingly, appellant- Insurance company had released O.D. Claim on the basis of valid licence of Sh. Vikram Singh.
7. During the period of investigation, Criminal record has been obtained through investigator Sh. Mohinder Kumar Mittal. As per criminal record, Sh.Sanjeev/Respondent no.6, has been charge sheeted in respect of F.I.R. No.610/2000 and he had no Driving Licence and Vikram Singh was not driving the vehicle at the time of alleged accident.
8. It is further stated that insured Sh.Bharat Singh concealed the name of driver and projected a false driver Sh. Vikram Singh in order to take O.D. claim and throw liability of third party upon appellant.
9. It is also stated that driver Sh. Sanjeev was not holding any driving licence at the time of alleged accident. The act of handing over vehicle to driver Sh. Sanjeev, who was not holding valid and effective driving licence, by insured/ owner, amounts to willful default, intentional breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
10. Vide impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,41,640/- to the claimants and the appellant was directed to deposit the award amount within 30 days, failing which it was liable to pay penal interest @ 12% per annum till realisation.
11. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle was being driven by respondent no.6 i.e. Sanjeev who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.
12. Other contention by appellants counsel is that since the appellant has challenged the award passed by the Tribunal for not complying with the provisions of section 149 of the Act, therefore, no permission under section 170 of the Act is required.
13. It is also contended by the counsel for the appellant that the testimony of two witnesses, Sh. Anil Kumar and Sh. Vikram Singh clearly proved that vehicle was being driven by Sanjeev and charge sheet has been filed against him only. As per charge sheet, he was not having any valid driving licence.
14. Thus on this basis, no liability can be fixed upon the appellant.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 in support of its contentions.
16. Before delving with the contentions of the appellant counsel, it is relevant to reproduce herein the relevant sections of the Act.
17. Section 3 of the Act reads as under; 3. Necessity for driving licence.- (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a
